Potato lobby eyes nutrition program gains

After years of trying, the potato lobby may have found the votes to break into the government’s premier nutrition program for pregnant mothers and their infants.

Prominent members of both parties have signed onto an industry-backed letter circulating this week in the Senate, and nutrition groups are clearly alarmed after successfully blocking the powerful lobby in final talks on the farm bill last winter.

Text Size

-

+

reset

If successful, the industry will gain what it sees as an important marketing tool. But critics charge that the end result will open the door to more special interests and violate a long-standing commitment by Congress to let independent scientists decide what foods are most needed.

The next round is expected to be May 22, when the Senate Appropriations Committee is slated to mark up the fiscal 2015 budget for the Agriculture Department. Based on interviews and the 20 signatories on the Senate letter, Republican Sen. Susan Collins from potato-rich Maine appears to have the upper hand in the fight.

Addressed to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the letter released Friday appears to have been designed by Collins — together with Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) — as an organizing tool for the Appropriations debate.

Collins should have solid support among the 14 Republicans on the panel and needs only two Democratic votes to have a majority. Among the signatories on the letter are Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) who both serve on Appropriations with her. And Udall’s cousin, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), is also on the panel and expected to line up with Mark, who faces a tough reelection campaign at home.

As a moderate Republican willing to work across the aisle, Collins brings her own cachet with Democrats. While not on Appropriations, those signing her letter to Vilsack include Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a top member of the Democratic leadership. Having these names should help her pick up more Democratic support in the committee.

The food program at issue is popularly known as WIC because it is geared to women and their infant children. But unlike food stamps, for example, its core mission is to be a source of “supplemental nutrition” for these households and is much more tailored to meet special needs.

The core program, which now serves an estimated 8.7 million people at a cost of about $6.8 billion next year, provides for the purchase of specific items such as milk, eggs, infant formula and cereal. A second set of monthly vouchers for the purchase of vegetables and fruit has been added in recent years and there is a third, much smaller corollary program to encourage WIC purchases at farm markets.

The potato fight began with this greater emphasis on fruit and vegetables and a 2005 report by the Institute of Medicine that argued that WIC’s beneficiaries already had enough starch in their diet and white potatoes should be excluded.

Sweet potatoes made the cut, but white potatoes were out — a decision that stuck in the industry’s craw and it has been fighting ever since.

Unlike the school lunch debate in 2011 — in which Collins also helped to promote potatoes — the fight now is more about image than direct sales.

Indeed, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the total annual expenditure for the monthly vegetable and fruit vouchers is about $650 million — a fraction of the estimated $15.5 billion in President Barack Obama’s 2015 budget for school breakfasts and lunches.

Moreover, almost 36 percent of WIC’s beneficiaries in 2012 were also on food stamps, where there is no limit on potatoes. “No one is saying potatoes are unhealthy,” said one advocate of the current WIC rules. “This is a ‘supplemental’ program. We are trying to supplement what people already have.”